diff mbox series

[v2,2/2] generic/732: don't run it on tmpfs

Message ID 20240729084715.1736839-2-yangerkun@huawei.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series [v2,1/2] generic/732: remove unused code | expand

Commit Message

yangerkun July 29, 2024, 8:47 a.m. UTC
Like what 4fd042e0465c("generic/732: don't run it on NFS") say, the same
options for tmpfs won't share the same backend. Skip it for tmpfs.

Besides, add some explanation for why we should skip tmpfs.

Signed-off-by: Yang Erkun <yangerkun@huawei.com>
---
 tests/generic/732 | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Christoph Hellwig July 29, 2024, 2:16 p.m. UTC | #1
Looks good:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Chuck Lever July 29, 2024, 2:21 p.m. UTC | #2
> On Jul 29, 2024, at 10:16 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> Looks good:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> 

I would prefer this test continue to run on tmpfs.

tmpfs is broken, and needs to be fixed. If the generic/732
failure is an issue, then add it to the expunge list --
it found a real bug, that, once fixed, we don't want to
reappear.


--
Chuck Lever
Chuck Lever July 29, 2024, 2:24 p.m. UTC | #3
> On Jul 29, 2024, at 10:21 AM, Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jul 29, 2024, at 10:16 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Looks good:
>> 
>> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>> 
> 
> I would prefer this test continue to run on tmpfs.
> 
> tmpfs is broken, and needs to be fixed. If the generic/732
> failure is an issue, then add it to the expunge list --
> it found a real bug, that, once fixed, we don't want to
> reappear.

Never mind.

Christoph, you deleted the context for this, and the
Subject: was one character different than the one for
generic/736. Even properly dosed on caffeine I missed
that.

--
Chuck Lever
yangerkun July 29, 2024, 2:28 p.m. UTC | #4
在 2024/7/29 22:21, Chuck Lever III 写道:
> 
> 
>> On Jul 29, 2024, at 10:16 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
>>
>> Looks good:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>>
> 
> I would prefer this test continue to run on tmpfs.
> 
> tmpfs is broken, and needs to be fixed. If the generic/732
> failure is an issue, then add it to the expunge list --
> it found a real bug, that, once fixed, we don't want to
> reappear.

The reason why I thinks it should not run for tmpfs is that the same 
mount options won't share the same sb. I prefer it's a expected behavior...


> 
> 
> --
> Chuck Lever
> 
>
yangerkun July 29, 2024, 2:30 p.m. UTC | #5
在 2024/7/29 22:24, Chuck Lever III 写道:
> 
> 
>> On Jul 29, 2024, at 10:21 AM, Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 29, 2024, at 10:16 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Looks good:
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>>>
>>
>> I would prefer this test continue to run on tmpfs.
>>
>> tmpfs is broken, and needs to be fixed. If the generic/732
>> failure is an issue, then add it to the expunge list --
>> it found a real bug, that, once fixed, we don't want to
>> reappear.
> 
> Never mind.
> 
> Christoph, you deleted the context for this, and the
> Subject: was one character different than the one for
> generic/736. Even properly dosed on caffeine I missed
> that.

Aha, got it.

> 
> --
> Chuck Lever
> 
>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/tests/generic/732 b/tests/generic/732
index d8475cda..d08028c2 100755
--- a/tests/generic/732
+++ b/tests/generic/732
@@ -21,7 +21,10 @@  _cleanup()
 	rm -r -f $tmp.*
 }
 
-_supported_fs ^nfs ^overlay
+# This case give a assumption that the same mount options for
+# different mount point will share the same superblock, which won't
+# sucess for the follow fs.
+_supported_fs ^nfs ^overlay ^tmpfs
 
 _require_test
 _require_scratch